FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Should Procreation Be Licensed

Should Procreation Be Licensed

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

What are your thoughts on such a draconian measure?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

is the moon made of cheese..?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Would the license be with the egg or the sperm? Will we throw back the ones that are unlicensed (like the cod quota)?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that."

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rthur WrightusMan over a year ago

Round the Bend

would we have to display the licence ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too"

Yeah, that irritating little idea about exterminating the Jews really puts you off him doesn't it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too"

what were his good ideas..?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uckoldandWifeCouple over a year ago

Manchester

You have to jump through a lot of hoops to adopt or foster, that's a kind of licensing. Why not extend it to everyone who wants to look after a kid?

It's not Eugenics its just making sure the kids will get some basics.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *Ryan-Man over a year ago

In Your Bush

Déjà vu ? Seem to recall this going tits up in the last couple of days, or am I getting confused?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"You have to jump through a lot of hoops to adopt or foster, that's a kind of licensing. Why not extend it to everyone who wants to look after a kid?

It's not Eugenics its just making sure the kids will get some basics."

How on earth would these licenses be administered and who would assess the criteria and people's suitability? Whose idea of suitability to procreate would we have to conform to? How would you define basics?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You have to jump through a lot of hoops to adopt or foster, that's a kind of licensing. Why not extend it to everyone who wants to look after a kid?

It's not Eugenics its just making sure the kids will get some basics."

And who gets to decide if I can have a kid? The government? The civil service? How open to abuse would it be to root out undesirables/poors/chavs/gypsys/Jews/immigrants/etc?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Would everybody be forced to take contraception until a licence is issued ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If you had a child without a licence would it be removed from you ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Who gets to break the bad news to someone who would love to have kids but has a dark spot in their history that makes the computer say no?

Humans are born with the ability to reproduce. It is in our genetic makeup to reproduce and to deny that is to remove the word human from the word humanity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Who gets to break the bad news to someone who would love to have kids but has a dark spot in their history that makes the computer say no?

Humans are born with the ability to reproduce. It is in our genetic makeup to reproduce and to deny that is to remove the word human from the word humanity."

I can't reproduce, does that make me an ity?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who gets to break the bad news to someone who would love to have kids but has a dark spot in their history that makes the computer say no?

Humans are born with the ability to reproduce. It is in our genetic makeup to reproduce and to deny that is to remove the word human from the word humanity.

I can't reproduce, does that make me an ity?"

you and me both. But I've contributed as much genetic material to the human gene pool as I'm prepared to contribute. Humanity will have to sink or swim with what it's got as I'm not donating anymore.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Who gets to break the bad news to someone who would love to have kids but has a dark spot in their history that makes the computer say no?

Humans are born with the ability to reproduce. It is in our genetic makeup to reproduce and to deny that is to remove the word human from the word humanity.

I can't reproduce, does that make me an ity?

you and me both. But I've contributed as much genetic material to the human gene pool as I'm prepared to contribute. Humanity will have to sink or swim with what it's got as I'm not donating anymore.

Are you sure you are done? Have you had the crucial test? By the way, did you get a licence?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who gets to break the bad news to someone who would love to have kids but has a dark spot in their history that makes the computer say no?

Humans are born with the ability to reproduce. It is in our genetic makeup to reproduce and to deny that is to remove the word human from the word humanity.

I can't reproduce, does that make me an ity?

you and me both. But I've contributed as much genetic material to the human gene pool as I'm prepared to contribute. Humanity will have to sink or swim with what it's got as I'm not donating anymore.

Are you sure you are done? Have you had the crucial test? By the way, did you get a licence?"

I have a driver's licence. It's got a couple of points on it, but I figure that if I need a paternity licence it'd be a bit late cos I've got a couple of points on that too!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Who gets to break the bad news to someone who would love to have kids but has a dark spot in their history that makes the computer say no?

Humans are born with the ability to reproduce. It is in our genetic makeup to reproduce and to deny that is to remove the word human from the word humanity.

I can't reproduce, does that make me an ity?

you and me both. But I've contributed as much genetic material to the human gene pool as I'm prepared to contribute. Humanity will have to sink or swim with what it's got as I'm not donating anymore.

Are you sure you are done? Have you had the crucial test? By the way, did you get a licence?

I have a driver's licence. It's got a couple of points on it, but I figure that if I need a paternity licence it'd be a bit late cos I've got a couple of points on that too!

Three is a few, not a couple

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rtemisiaWoman over a year ago

Norwich

No license is acceptable as it is a basic denial of a fundamental human right. Society should concentrate on caring for those children, unlucky enough to be born to parents who themselves fail to uphold the rights of those children, via cruelty, abuse, neglect etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You have to jump through a lot of hoops to adopt or foster, that's a kind of licensing. Why not extend it to everyone who wants to look after a kid?

It's not Eugenics its just making sure the kids will get some basics.

And who gets to decide if I can have a kid? The government? The civil service? How open to abuse would it be to root out undesirables/poors/chavs/gypsys/Jews/immigrants/etc?"

I know what SexyWifeCuckHusband are getting at.... Within my job I come across many families with children that really shouldn't have that privilege extended to them.... children running around unsupervised, half clothed and filthy late at night when they should be in bed, that don't attend school, have no respect for anyone or anything because of the way they are brought up. It is desperately sad.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You have to jump through a lot of hoops to adopt or foster, that's a kind of licensing. Why not extend it to everyone who wants to look after a kid?

It's not Eugenics its just making sure the kids will get some basics.

And who gets to decide if I can have a kid? The government? The civil service? How open to abuse would it be to root out undesirables/poors/chavs/gypsys/Jews/immigrants/etc?

But why tar everyone else with the same brush as a VERY SMALL minority of ne'er do wells? It's a VERY dangerous path.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uckoldandWifeCouple over a year ago

Manchester

If a couple want to adopt or foster they can't just walk into social services and take any baby or child they like without a lot of background checks and tests. If its every humans right to have kids then why can't they just take one, no questions asked?

We are not advocating licensing, it would be impossible and silly, just really saying why do we test the people who want to pick up the mistakes and problems of others while we let them continue to procreate without a question asked?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not licensed, but maybe given a little more thought. Family on the local news the other week moaning that they needed a bigger house. Neither parent has a job but they have managed to reproduce themselves 8 times. And now it is someone else's responsibility to find them a big enough house. Council reckon they will have to knock 2 semi detached houses into one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layfullsamMan over a year ago

Solihull

"If you had a child without a licence would it be removed from you ? "

or you could hide it under the sofa when the detection vans come around listening for crying and tantrums

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Yeah, that irritating little idea about exterminating the Jews really puts you off him doesn't it?"

It is a controversial thing to say, the sort of opinion that will get me into a lot of trouble with the "PC crowd," but I feel compelled to say it: Hitler had some pretty good ideas. It's one of those true things that when you say it in public sends the usual thought police into a tizzy. Of course the Holocaust was bad. Of course WWII was a terrible violence dealt to history. Does that mean the guy responsible can't be a great thinker?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too"

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Yeah, that irritating little idea about exterminating the Jews really puts you off him doesn't it?

You're not alone in your thinking. It should be noted that history is written by the victors and they tend to write it so it benefits them and casts aspersions on the vanquished. Did the holocaust happen? Yes it did, there is evidence of it. Was it Hitler's Master Plan? It would appear so. Was his ultimate aim World Domination? Undeniably so.

Why?

He believed that humans needed state control in all aspects of their lives to achieve their maximum potential. (Not a million miles away from Communism).

He also believed that some races of man were defective and imperfections should be eradicated (perversely he adopted the blue-eyed/blonde-haired Aryan race as the prefect race, yet he himself didn't belong to it).

Was he a madman? Definitely not.

Now if you look at the other thread regarding generations and factor that into the Jews that Oscar Schindler saved from the gas chambers (he saved 1,000 Jews, from whom there are 6,000 living descendants), if Hitler hadn't been born there would be somewhere in the region of 36,000,000 more Jews in the world today than there currently is. That's quite a dynamic shift in the balance of power across most of Europe and in the Middle East.

It is almost certain that had Hitler not existed the world today would have been a vastly different place.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

EDIT * would be a vastly different place

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

the bomb program he had, well after the war lot's of those scientists ended up working for NASA. So the same technology used in the V1 and V2 bombs put mankind in space

Just saying

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

the bomb program he had, well after the war lot's of those scientists ended up working for NASA. So the same technology used in the V1 and V2 bombs put mankind in space

Just saying"

They weren't his ideas tho were they.they were somebody else's Its a bit like claiming Marconi invented the radio.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rtemisiaWoman over a year ago

Norwich

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

the bomb program he had, well after the war lot's of those scientists ended up working for NASA. So the same technology used in the V1 and V2 bombs put mankind in space

Just saying

They weren't his ideas tho were they.they were somebody else's Its a bit like claiming Marconi invented the radio."

Precisely!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Something needs to be done about population growth yes, as it's a major contributing factor to most of our problems, but not quite as draconian as licensing.

What I'd like to see in this country is tax breaks/benefits paid for the first child only. And free NHS care for the first only.

Why people should effectively be paid for making our problems worse is beyond me. Childless married and single people get fuck all. Yet pop out a sprog and you get cash to help you afford it. Surely that should have been a consideration before you fucked?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

the bomb program he had, well after the war lot's of those scientists ended up working for NASA. So the same technology used in the V1 and V2 bombs put mankind in space

Just saying

They weren't his ideas tho were they.they were somebody else's Its a bit like claiming Marconi invented the radio."

and sometimes it was his generals and SS officers that made him look worse than he was

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

the bomb program he had, well after the war lot's of those scientists ended up working for NASA. So the same technology used in the V1 and V2 bombs put mankind in space

Just saying

They weren't his ideas tho were they.they were somebody else's Its a bit like claiming Marconi invented the radio.

and sometimes it was his generals and SS officers that made him look worse than he was"

In what way? is there a method for grading genocidal maniac?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Yeah, that irritating little idea about exterminating the Jews really puts you off him doesn't it?

Why?

He believed that humans needed state control in all aspects of their lives to achieve their maximum potential. (Not a million miles away from Communism).

Was he a madman? Definitely not.

It is almost certain that had Hitler not existed the world today would have been a vastly different place."

Wishy,

yes history is written by the victors but you cant exactly write about mass genocide by a homicidal maniac in a nice way can you..

and he's not been alone in being a member of that club..

the guy was barking, his idea's if carried through would not have stopped with the Jewish race as you probably know..

He had no right, no place to put himself as the saviour of the World by removing 'imperfect or different' people..

no one does or should have that power..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ypernovaMan over a year ago

SW Brum

"No license is acceptable as it is a basic denial of a fundamental human right. Society should concentrate on caring for those children, unlucky enough to be born to parents who themselves fail to uphold the rights of those children, via cruelty, abuse, neglect etc."

At last, the voice of reason!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *evilwolfCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

He had no right, no place to put himself as the saviour of the World by removing 'imperfect or different' people..

no one does or should have that power.."

like most dictators, he was only the saviour of his own arse

Wolf

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At last, the voice of reason!

That human right is all well and good and should not be suspended. However, before people exercise that right they should be asking themselves if they can afford it without state help/charity, and how the country is going to find food/power/healthcare/education/employment for it in the immediate future.

I'm all for people's human rights, I think they have a duty to think about using them responsibly though for the common good of rest of the humans.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

the bomb program he had, well after the war lot's of those scientists ended up working for NASA. So the same technology used in the V1 and V2 bombs put mankind in space

Just saying

They weren't his ideas tho were they.they were somebody else's Its a bit like claiming Marconi invented the radio.

and sometimes it was his generals and SS officers that made him look worse than he was"

So know you are making excuses for him?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"What are your thoughts on such a draconian measure?"

I dunno if licensing is the answer but two things are clear.

1) there are too many children being born

2) many of them are born to people who should never be allowed to be parents.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

the bomb program he had, well after the war lot's of those scientists ended up working for NASA. So the same technology used in the V1 and V2 bombs put mankind in space

Just saying

They weren't his ideas tho were they.they were somebody else's Its a bit like claiming Marconi invented the radio.

and sometimes it was his generals and SS officers that made him look worse than he was

So know you are making excuses for him?

Good grief.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

autobahn

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"autobahn

Nah, let's continue to let the Mods decide

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ce WingerMan over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

It is almost certain that had Hitler not existed the world today would have been a vastly different place."

No shit Sherlock

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes I suspect this thread is going to have the shit moderated out of it soon.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

I am not going to say it is the right thing to do, but when you watch stuff like the Jeremy Kyle show it does sometimes go thru my head the thought of should these people be allowed to have them.... Not on the basis of race or gender, but the case of can they actually do a good job of caring for them.

It is going to be too emotive a case as there are couples out there who can't have children and would be loving parents... And in a way it would I suppose decrease the number of children being put up for adoption.... But there is no way I would want to be on a panel decided someone else's fate on such an emotive subject telling someone " sorry, no kids for you"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Sure it wasnt long ago that there was concern that not enough women were choosing to become parents.. and they were worried that there would be a shortage of working age people to support the baby boomers.

It kinda comes in fits and starts...

I dont think they should licence it.. And the restricting help to first child is all well and good.. Till you get say a 4 child family that have worked all their life and suddenly find they are not able to for whatever reason.

Is it really then fair to deny the other 3 children help??

Cali

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *londeCazWoman over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

"Something needs to be done about population growth yes, as it's a major contributing factor to most of our problems, but not quite as draconian as licensing.

What I'd like to see in this country is tax breaks/benefits paid for the first child only. And free NHS care for the first only.

I'm with Jodie on this one...I choose to be child-free so I do kinda resent that some of my tax goes towards mahoosive families where neither of the parents have ever contributed to society other than to pop out sprog after sprog...

A couple of friends of mine have large families (one has 8 and one has 10) but the Dad (one only in each family) works hard and they don't get many benefits other than child support/tax credits and both families own their houses so aren't dependant on the council sorting them a 6 bedroom house or whatever is demanded by some of these families...

Oh and I've unfortunately come across some people who should never have been allowed to breed, regardless of licences

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Sure it wasnt long ago that there was concern that not enough women were choosing to become parents.. and they were worried that there would be a shortage of working age people to support the baby boomers.

It kinda comes in fits and starts...

Is it really then fair to deny the other 3 children help??

Cali"

Wasn't suggesting it be done retrospectively.

Just set a date 6 months from now and say it takes effect for all children conceived after that date. If you have one child and it dies it wouldn't affect a subsequent child you have either. And it wouldn't affect you if you conceived twins etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Wasn't suggesting it be done retrospectively.

I am saying that say a family that has lots of money currently decides to have 4 children.. and some time in the future they find themselves in dire straights.... should only the one child be supported???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

But why should they get any benefit/tax credit? They've chosen to make all those babies, and credit to the dad for working, but shouldn't they have had just one or two and not had to work so hard and need state support?

And after you agreed with me too, I'm such a bitch!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Wasn't suggesting it be done retrospectively.

Oh I see what you mean sorry.

Part of me wants to say yes, and part no.

Is that not called planning? Ok you were rich enough to have X number of kids then, but did you not think about this happening?? So why should we bail you out?

And the other bit doesn't want me to see too much hardship, so in exceptional circumstances, why not?

But we've got to slow the birth rate, and letting people know that the state will only support and provide for the first child has got to be a start.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Tell you what, instead of sterilizing half the population so we have less kids. Why don't we just cram everyone over the age of... lets say... 45 into a work camp/gas chamber and save billions that way?

Or we could do both and just eliminate every non-productive member of society, not sure how we'll get kids through the selection process as they don't really do much until they hit their teens.

------------------------------

I'm sorry to say that some of the stuff I've read in this thread has made me sick to the core. Countless WW2 soldiers must be spinning in their graves as everything they fought and died for is being pissed up the wall because some shit stain didn't like a poor person having kids.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *londeCazWoman over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

And after you agreed with me too, I'm such a bitch! "

Biatch!!!! I've no problem with some of my taxes subsidising ankle-biters if their parents have made some contribution, and I have other child free friends who receive some benefits such as working tax credit...I wouldn't have it any other way. I do also think that child benefit should be restricted to the first couple of sprogs, but wouldn't want my friends to have to send their existing children down the mines or up the chimneys...trust me, I'll sort it all out when I rule the world

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If someone is jobless and has the temerity to have a second kid why don't the authorities just kill their first born. that'll teach em. then when everyone has got the message we can start picking off the old folk or any disadvantaged groups. We can then convert their homes into expensive apartments for the rest of us.

Alternatively we could ask ourselves who made it our business to decide that some can't have something that everybody else is free to choose.

Yeah. I prefer the second option

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Tell you what, instead of sterilizing half the population so we have less kids. Why don't we just cram everyone over the age of... lets say... 45 into a work camp/gas chamber and save billions that way?

Or we could do both and just eliminate every non-productive member of society, not sure how we'll get kids through the selection process as they don't really do much until they hit their teens.

------------------------------

How is asking people in this country to consider wether they can afford to feed/clothe a second child without state support stopping people from having kids? You can have them, but we're only helping with the first.

The whole planet is rapidly running out of resources and population growth needs to be tackled now, without affecting human rights if at all possible.

If you have any better ideas to put in the debate then feel free. Preferably before the power outages start, the NHS collapses and you've no food to eat.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If someone is jobless and has the temerity to have a second kid why don't the authorities just kill their first born. that'll teach em. then when everyone has got the message we can start picking off the old folk or any disadvantaged groups. We can then convert their homes into expensive apartments for the rest of us.

Alternatively we could ask ourselves who made it our business to decide that some can't have something that everybody else is free to choose.

Yeah. I prefer the second option"

You would be free to choose. "can the money we earn stretch to another child?"

There's your choice right there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Or we could do both and just eliminate every non-productive member of society, not sure how we'll get kids through the selection process as they don't really do much until they hit their teens.

------------------------------

The whole planet is rapidly running out of resources and population growth needs to be tackled now, without affecting human rights if at all possible.

If you have any better ideas to put in the debate then feel free. Preferably before the power outages start, the NHS collapses and you've no food to eat. "

Important question: Do you read the Daily Mail?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Important question: Do you read the Daily Mail?

Guardian actually, and Private Eye. And I donate to a charity called population matters which tries to raise awareness of the problems caused by our obsession with having babies.

None of what I've said is draconian, right wing or infringes human rights in any way. I'm simply advocating a way of making people in this country think before they have a second or third child.

People who bang out child after child with no thought of how they will pay for them are helping strangle the welfare state. That is fact. That is why we have a huge defecit, we are supporting more people on welfare/through the nhs than are paying into the system. And that gets worse with every child born.

We have a deficit in power. It is managed well by the national grid at the moment as they know where demand areas are, and when. But unless we get some more generation capacity up and running soon then we can expect power outages at peak times within 20 years. Wind power is too intermittent and inefficient.

Globally we are running out of food. Again that is a fact. It may not seem so on your trips to the shops, but food prices, in particular grain are on the rise.

So I'm not being right wing, i'm suggesting a way of helping the people already here by perhaps having a few less sprogs. I haven't mentioned killing anyone at any point in my posts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 07/02/13 14:03:54]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Alternatively we could ask ourselves who made it our business to decide that some can't have something that everybody else is free to choose.

Yeah. I prefer the second option"

Well said there are some vile views on this thread.

And I've said it before but it needs saying again, these threads just prove that this government's policy if turning the poor against the poor is working.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Alternatively we could ask ourselves who made it our business to decide that some can't have something that everybody else is free to choose.

Yeah. I prefer the second option

You would be free to choose. "can the money we earn stretch to another child?"

There's your choice right there. "

Precisely. and that's what it would be. My

choice. That's a long way from advocating

a form of social cleansing. and its not for me to make a choice for others. its not a popular

opinion here but i don't care how other

people choose to live their lives.or f uck up

their lives come to that..its none of my business whether

they work or not. whether they're on

benefits or not. or whether they spend said

benefits on cider and crack cocaine. no one

has the right,and I mean no one to tell

others whether they can have children or

not. if there's too many people in the world

talk to the pope about condoms first before

we start talking about social cleansing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

ppls lives can change for the better or worse...sometimes its the children they have that ends up making them being worthy of society in a way

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Important question: Do you read the Daily Mail?

Guardian actually, and Private Eye. And I donate to a charity called population matters which tries to raise awareness of the problems caused by our obsession with having babies.

None of what I've said is draconian, right wing or infringes human rights in any way. I'm simply advocating a way of making people in this country think before they have a second or third child.

Globally we are running out of food. Again that is a fact. It may not seem so on your trips to the shops, but food prices, in particular grain are on the rise.

So I'm not being right wing, i'm suggesting a way of helping the people already here by perhaps having a few less sprogs. I haven't mentioned killing anyone at any point in my posts.

Simple question. In views of how much food is wasted globally do you not think that population is possibly not the best way to solve that particular problem?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Alternatively we could ask ourselves who made it our business to decide that some can't have something that everybody else is free to choose.

Yeah. I prefer the second option

You would be free to choose. "can the money we earn stretch to another child?"

There's your choice right there.

Precisely. and that's what it would be. My

choice. That's a long way from advocating

a form of social cleansing. and its not for me to make a choice for others. its not a popular

opinion here but i don't care how other

people choose to live their lives.or f uck up

their lives come to that..its none of my business whether

they work or not. whether they're on

benefits or not. or whether they spend said

benefits on cider and crack cocaine. no one

has the right,and I mean no one to tell

others whether they can have children or

not. if there's too many people in the world

talk to the pope about condoms first before

we start talking about social cleansing"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Explain to me how it's social cleansing saying that EVERYONE should be entitled to one state supported baby but subsequent ones get no state support.

I think you're mixing up what I've said withthe Nazi posts and talk of licensing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And I've said it before but it needs saying again, these threads just prove that this government's policy if turning the poor against the poor is working."

I'm sorry but that's just bollocks. The govt have no master plan to turn the poor against each other. This is just a forum where people put down sporadic thoughts that are their own and have no basis in popular consensus nor in any secret govt manifesto.

Given absolute power to do whatever they wanted I doubt anyone on here who has posted restricting children to one per couple would actually go ahead and implement it, as they'd have to look at their own family members and see which of them should be culled.

For my own personal view, I do not believe it is the role of govt to instigate mass birth control methods. Govt exists purely to serve the people, not the other way round, and if population numbers are steadily climbing then it up to society and govt together to ensure that all are catered for.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

That is why we have a huge defecit, we are supporting more people on welfare/through the nhs than are paying into the system. "

the defecit is not all down to the welfare bill, not even the far right within the tory party would say that...

their are other costs within the welfare part of publc spending, pensions, tax credits etc..

yes people need to take responsibility but thats across the board, seems like kick someone else to sound or feel good is too prevelant within these forums..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Simple question. In views of how much food is wasted globally do you not think that population is possibly not the best way to solve that particular problem?"

Get rid of ludicrous EU directives about straight bananas and curved cucumbers et al and our food would go a lot further. Moreover, why is so much food destroyed instead of sending it to places like Africa where they'd welcome it with open arms, bent bananas and curved cucumbers included.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

Alternatively we could ask ourselves who made it our business to decide that some can't have something that everybody else is free to choose.

Yeah. I prefer the second option

You would be free to choose. "can the money we earn stretch to another child?"

There's your choice right there.

Precisely. and that's what it would be. My

choice. That's a long way from advocating

a form of social cleansing. and its not for me to make a choice for others. its not a popular

opinion here but i don't care how other

people choose to live their lives.or f uck up

their lives come to that..its none of my business whether

they work or not. whether they're on

benefits or not. or whether they spend said

benefits on cider and crack cocaine. no one

has the right,and I mean no one to tell

others whether they can have children or

not. if there's too many people in the world

talk to the pope about condoms first before

we start talking about social cleansing"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Explain to me how it's social cleansing saying that EVERYONE should be entitled to one state supported baby but subsequent ones get no state support.

I think you're mixing up what I've said withthe Nazi posts and talk of licensing.

No,I'm definitely not mixing up my Nazi's

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *kin BohnerMan over a year ago

derby

Mmmmm I have to say that I do think some people really should not be allowed to breed but the liberal in me struggles with that.

I once heard a suggestion that everyone should be sterilised at birth and you would have to apply for a licence to breed when you reach the age. I kind of see the attraction of that but who will be the judge!

I see some comments on this forum on a supposed site for open minded adults and I do wonder if they are A, adult and B, on the right site! I cant imagine the thoughts of a closed minded panel granting the licences to breed... Just think of the criteria they would impose...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Mmmmm I have to say that I do think some people really should not be allowed to breed but the liberal in me struggles with that.

God lives at No.10 Downing Street eh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Oh FFs! I have never said anywhere in this thread about restricting people to one child through culling or any other way.

I will say it again, I suggested that regardless of social standing, child benefit/tax breaks ONLY be paid for the first child and that NHS care only be free for the first child. Simply to make people stop and think before conceiving again about how it will be paid for.

And yes, if I was in power I'd push for that in legislation.

As for the food wastage comment, you can legislate to restrict benefits for multiple children and improve awareness of population growth issues through education.

You can't legislate against people throwing away half a plate of food, you can only educate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think its really about people turning their children into 'earners'- either way u look at it, some have decided to take easier options on earning money from the children they produce

but having a license?- that just feeds the notion that the children are to be a commodity

are we getting closer to a hive mentality?- those with no 'function' become useless?

sounds all rather mechanical to me, and I think people/organizations are always seeking their own twisted opinion on how to perfect the chaos of life itself-sometimes it can be good and sometimes dreadfully bad

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The total land mass of the United Kingdom is enough land to grow all the crops we need to feed the entire planet. It's not a case that there are too many people populating the Earth, it's that we haven't learned how to feed them in the most economical of ways.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Explain to me how it's social cleansing saying that EVERYONE should be entitled to one state supported baby but subsequent ones get no state support.

I think you're mixing up what I've said withthe Nazi posts and talk of licensing.

No,I'm definitely not mixing up my Nazi's"

Then you're just trolling as you've nothing sensible to add to the debate and can find no holes to pick in my suggestion. And that's all it is, a suggestion. It'll never happen as babies are sacrosanct.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 07/02/13 14:31:57]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

That's why we need to look at all possible sources of nutrition rather than the limited supply available.....such as horse meat.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *londeCazWoman over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

"Oh FFs! I have never said anywhere in this thread about restricting people to one child through culling or any other way.

And yes, if I was in power I'd push for that in legislation.

As for the food wastage comment, you can legislate to restrict benefits for multiple children and improve awareness of population growth issues through education.

You can't legislate against people throwing away half a plate of food, you can only educate. "

I'll let you be my deputy when I take over the world Jodie

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The total land mass of the United Kingdom is enough land to grow all the crops we need to feed the entire planet. It's not a case that there are too many people populating the Earth, it's that we haven't learned how to feed them in the most economical of ways."

True, but we'd all have to become vegetarian/vegan and stop using land for biofuel and animal feed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 07/02/13 14:37:30]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

True, but we'd all have to become vegetarian/vegan and stop using land for biofuel and animal feed. "

There's plenty of land left to use for fields for cattle/sheep to graze in and lots left to drill for oil/gas etc. The example I used regarding the UK is just for growing crops. That's all the land we need for that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Explain to me how it's social cleansing saying that EVERYONE should be entitled to one state supported baby but subsequent ones get no state support.

I think you're mixing up what I've said withthe Nazi posts and talk of licensing.

No,I'm definitely not mixing up my Nazi's

sacrosanct? But you're suggesting second babies shouldn't be treated by the nhs unless someone can pay for it. so babies will die as a result of your plan. one dead baby. is that a big enough hole for you?. for what its worth the nhs saved my second baby from dying when he was seven weeks old.could i have paid for it? Probably not

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I agree there should be some restrictions in childbirth if you can't afford them, as someone said it wouldn't affect families that have kids now but from a set date in the future, now I think everyone should be able to have one child no matter who or what they are, then if you want 2 or 3 you have to be able to prove you can afford the extra children without govt help, then for every year you work you earn a months benefits and then god forbid the worst happens and you are unable to work you receive your benefit until your back to work, or if you are unable to return to work for medical reasons you get the help as long as you have the children but are stopped from having anymore

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I agree there should be some restrictions in childbirth if you can't afford them, as someone said it wouldn't affect families that have kids now but from a set date in the future, now I think everyone should be able to have one child no matter who or what they are, then if you want 2 or 3 you have to be able to prove you can afford the extra children without govt help, then for every year you work you earn a months benefits and then god forbid the worst happens and you are unable to work you receive your benefit until your back to work, or if you are unable to return to work for medical reasons you get the help as long as you have the children but are stopped from having anymore"

And if a successful businessman has four kids because he can afford it and his wife divorces him and takes him to the cleaners and he loses the plot which means his business goes under. What then? He can't have any more children if he meets someone new and they want to cement their union with a child? What nonsense.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"sacrosanct? But you're suggesting second babies shouldn't be treated by the nhs unless someone can pay for it. so babies will die as a result of your plan. one dead baby. is that a big enough hole for you?. for what its worth the nhs saved my second baby from dying when he was seven weeks old.could i have paid for it? Probably not"

Hell lets go back to thr olden days with work houses for the poor, we can send kids to work in deathtrap factories to keep the numbers down too. And if a few babies die because their parents were so irrisponsible as to have sex then thats a small price to pay for the furthering of the master race.

Christ, here's another thought. There are enough kids getting knocked up and having to leave school as it is, there's a fair chance that they'll have more than one kid too. I know!!! Lets lock them into a life of grinding poverty trying to support their family and probably spawn another generation of il educated people who end up getting pregnant more than once because they didn't think to use birth control. Bravo!!!!

Yeah, I think thats enough a hole in the first-child only idea.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *kin BohnerMan over a year ago

derby

"God lives at No.10 Downing Street eh?

The last people to do the judging should be politicians...

Re the child benefit, I am at a lose to understand why this is paid. If you want a child its your choice why should the tax payer contribute to its up keep!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not read this thread so it may already have been said but eugenics was invented in the UK by Darwins cousin and was first used in the USA to sterilise immigrants. Hitler tried to take it to the nth degree but he didn't invent the theory. Eugenics have been used in Korea I believe too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

anyone else think its a rather dire view on the future?- once we start saying kids arent just valuable for being kids, all weve done is quantify them.Also worries me that it'd possibly stretch to those who have disabled children- mentioning how much its going to cost to care for them is a pretty disgusting notion in my opinion.

I know most who are discussing the topic dont mean it in a bad way, I know ur thinking about the present and future climate of society...but as many know here, to be dictated to on lifes fundamentals isnt really up for many peoples debate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yeah, I think thats enough a hole in the first-child only idea."

No, you've not found a hole in my suggestion at all, either of you. I'm pretty sure sex education, even where it's poorly taught still covers the "sex makes babies" part.

As I've said all along, it would make people think about wether they could afford to have a second child. If they could afford the health insurance for example. It would ensure a future for ALL, not just some sort of Nazi faction you seem to think I represent.

******This is the important part so read carefully-----It'd be about taking responsibility for what you've created rather than assuming someone will help you and it'll all work out.******

Assuming there's a never ending supply of food, power and other resources to support it is part of the problem.

Abortions would still be free, and if you object to that on moral or religious rounds then get your church to sell off some of its property portfolio to fund a charity for the extra kids.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yeah, I think thats enough a hole in the first-child only idea.

No, you've not found a hole in my suggestion at all, either of you. I'm pretty sure sex education, even where it's poorly taught still covers the "sex makes babies" part.

******This is the important part so read carefully-----It'd be about taking responsibility for what you've created rather than assuming someone will help you and it'll all work out.******

Assuming there's a never ending supply of food, power and other resources to support it is part of the problem.

Abortions would still be free, and if you object to that on moral or religious rounds then get your church to sell off some of its property portfolio to fund a charity for the extra kids. "

Its a simple question. would your nhs suggestion lead to the otherwise preventable death of babies. A simple answer will do. Its either yes or no

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ce WingerMan over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

******This is the important part so read carefully-----It'd be about taking responsibility for what you've created rather than assuming someone will help you and it'll all work out.******

Makes perfect sense to me hen

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *quirrelMan over a year ago

East Manchester

""God lives at No.10 Downing Street eh?

The last people to do the judging should be politicians...

Re the child benefit, I am at a lose to understand why this is paid. If you want a child its your choice why should the tax payer contribute to its up keep! "

If we didnt keep the population going where would the votes come from to put the next generations of corrupt liars into power?

I think the problem is with the current population is that the ability to have children should not be about passing the practical exam, there should be some other test to see wether you should have funding for them too. And every family should be limited to 2 birth events in their lifetime.

I.E. They can only have either 2 individual kids or as many kids as are born on 2 seperate occasions, not as many as they can knock out in the years they are fertile enough to have them. (I Bet this kicks the beehive)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *quirrelMan over a year ago

East Manchester

[Removed by poster at 07/02/13 16:06:20]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *londeCazWoman over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

snip...

******This is the important part so read carefully-----It'd be about taking responsibility for what you've created rather than assuming someone will help you and it'll all work out.******

Its a simple question. would your nhs suggestion lead to the otherwise preventable death of babies. A simple answer will do. Its either yes or no"

It's rarely ever a simple yes or no, but I'd say if you've taken responsibiltiy for your offspring as suggested above and organised medical insurance then No, if you expect "someone" to pay for your child, then Possibly

Oh, and for the record, I don't agree with the premise of no NHS aid to children other than the first, but I'm all for people taking responsibility for their breeding if they can't afford it without depending totally on taxpayers.

And furthermore...the only people mentioning culling on this thread so far have been those vehemently opposed to any sort of population control

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm not sure population growth is a major issue in the Uk if you strip out net immigration. That said, high teenage pregnancy rates would indicate that more education is required and that maybe the state support at present is too high as it isn't acting as a deterrent to young people falling pregnant whilst unable to economically support themselves.

It is clearly a larger problem in the rapidly growing populations of places like India and Indonesia, but over time education and economic conditions will act as a form of self regulation.

I do not believe any form of licensing or state restrictions is justified in any sane, rational and humane society.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What they could do is anyone that has one child is ok but for each child that is born after that then they should have to make a payment/ fine for eg. £4000 which could slow it down and if the payment isn't made then it is collected from any state benefits they would be getting.

I'm sure china had something like this going. Don't know if they still do

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What they could do is anyone that has one child is ok but for each child that is born after that then they should have to make a payment/ fine for eg. £4000 which could slow it down and if the payment isn't made then it is collected from any state benefits they would be getting.

I'm sure china had something like this going. Don't know if they still do"

and a happy lot they are eh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What are your thoughts on such a draconian measure?"

I would never be ok with giving up my right to decide for myself...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes pretty much if he can't afford to have another child then new relationship or not,he has his children witch by your example he won't be supporting anyway because he has no money to pay for them after is divorce so he can't afford another child,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm sure china had something like this going. Don't know if they still do

and a happy lot they are eh?"

We'll I've never seen a grumpy one. They're always full of smiles from what I've seen

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The deaths could be preventable if the people having them paid for NHS medical care or decided they couldn't afford the child in the first place and didn't have it.

Given those choices then any deaths would be attributable only to the people who make the decision to have a child they can't afford.

Its about time people started caring for the people already here instead of worrying about babies as yet unborn.

I personally would like the future retirement I've paid for already, not social breakdown and chaos as the welfare system collapses.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm sure china had something like this going. Don't know if they still do

and a happy lot they are eh?

We'll I've never seen a grumpy one. They're always full of smiles from what I've seen"

I mean IN china lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm sure china had something like this going. Don't know if they still do

and a happy lot they are eh?

We'll I've never seen a grumpy one. They're always full of smiles from what I've seen

I mean IN china lol"

I've never been

But it seems a better idea than a licence

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

VW beetle

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The deaths could be preventable if the people having them paid for NHS medical care or decided they couldn't afford the child in the first place and didn't have it.

Given those choices then any deaths would be attributable only to the people who make the decision to have a child they can't afford.

Its about time people started caring for the people already here instead of worrying about babies as yet unborn.

I personally would like the future retirement I've paid for already, not social breakdown and chaos as the welfare system collapses. "

yeah thanks for not answering the actual question. it spoke volumes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *londeCazWoman over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

"The deaths could be preventable if the people having them paid for NHS medical care or decided they couldn't afford the child in the first place and didn't have it.

Given those choices then any deaths would be attributable only to the people who make the decision to have a child they can't afford.

Its about time people started caring for the people already here instead of worrying about babies as yet unborn.

I personally would like the future retirement I've paid for already, not social breakdown and chaos as the welfare system collapses.

yeah thanks for not answering the actual question. it spoke volumes "

Not sure how that answer equates to not being an answer - can't always get a Y/N answer just cos you demand one

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

well i guess maternal instinct kicks in when people start talking about babies having medical care withheld. but then some people dont possess it. others are unable to possess it no matter how much they attempt to dress it up. but if an individual chooses not to have kids i hope they don't think they're doing the planet a huge favour. society maybe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

China brought in a one child policy in 1979 and whilst estimates suggest it has led to a reduction in their population of about 300 million..

its also led to a reduction in the ratio of females within their society

as they are deemed of less worth than males..

and to the authorities having to fence of part of one area to the Yangtse as it was a good spot to drown baby girls..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"China brought in a one child policy in 1979 and whilst estimates suggest it has led to a reduction in their population of about 300 million..

its also led to a reduction in the ratio of females within their society

as they are deemed of less worth than males..

and to the authorities having to fence of part of one area to the Yangtse as it was a good spot to drown baby girls.."

China stopped their one-child policy some time ago but when it was in effect it only applied to families in rural areas. Urban dwellers were unaffected by it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"China brought in a one child policy in 1979 and whilst estimates suggest it has led to a reduction in their population of about 300 million..

its also led to a reduction in the ratio of females within their society

as they are deemed of less worth than males..

and to the authorities having to fence of part of one area to the Yangtse as it was a good spot to drown baby girls..

China stopped their one-child policy some time ago but when it was in effect it only applied to families in rural areas. Urban dwellers were unaffected by it."

ta for clarifying..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not sure about licensing, but I do agree with some of Jodie's ideas on contributing to the upbringing of children in bigger families, even if just a token gesture as a token gesture per child would soon add up.

Education should be looked at too...it does worry me how some of the myths about how not to get pregnant from when I was a teenager are still around despite information being so freely available on the internet.

One thing I do think should be looked at is the option of sterilisation for those who do not want children. I don't want kids, but I know I won't be able to get sterilised as I have no children and I am single. I also know a woman who had 6 kids at 28 and couldn't get sterilised until she was 30...she ended up with 8 kids last I heard of her. Now I do feel she should have perhaps crossed her legs or picked up a few condoms, but why would they not sterilise her after child no 6 when she asked for it? And why can I not be sterilised because I am single and childless?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"well i guess maternal instinct kicks in when people start talking about babies having medical care withheld. but then some people dont possess it. others are unable to possess it no matter how much they attempt to dress it up. but if an individual chooses not to have kids i hope they don't think they're doing the planet a huge favour. society maybe."

Thinly veiled insults about my lifestyle choices just go to show you have fuck all interesting to add to this debate and are always going to be part of the problem rather than assist in a solution in any way.

So go ahead and breed like a rabbit, then when it all goes tits up you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm curious to find out the opinion of the people who are advocating mandatory population control on abortion.

In their ideal planned future, there will be people who don't mean to get pregnant* again but can't afford to pay all the extra costs of the kid. Should we just terminate these kids?

*I know people who use the pill and condoms yet have ended up pregnant, yes the odds are low but they aren't zero.

Personally I'm pro-choice, but a lot of people aren't due to their beliefs - either religious or secular.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm curious to find out the opinion of the people who are advocating mandatory population control on abortion.

In their ideal planned future, there will be people who don't mean to get pregnant* again but can't afford to pay all the extra costs of the kid. Should we just terminate these kids?

*I know people who use the pill and condoms yet have ended up pregnant, yes the odds are low but they aren't zero.

Personally I'm pro-choice, but a lot of people aren't due to their beliefs - either religious or secular."

I assume you are referring to me. Again I have to repeat that I was not advocating "mandatory" population control by force or any other method. That's the sort of thing that went on in parts of China as has been stated. I have never said anything like that, you can read back and check. You seem to want me to start saying things like that so you can call me a Nazi or something.

What I was advocating was the removal of state financial help which can be an incentive for having more than one child. In an attempt to make people think before conceiving again and placing more strain on an already overburdened system.

So there will be some pregnancies that happen regardless of contraception, but only a small amount. Again, abortion is free.

If you object to that on religious grounds then you could get your church to help raise it.

If you're secular and object on moral grounds then you need to examine those beliefs and weigh up wether the child will suffer as a result of your actions when you can't afford to feed/clothe it, and also weather the life of one unborn feotus is worth sacrificing a little bit of the future of the human race in its entirety.

So basically, as I said before it's about taking responsibility for what you've created.

Because when society breaks down which it will rapidly do when people start going cold and hungry, particularly us soft first world types, it will very soon become an unpleasant experience for all. Try looking at some of the experiences in the New Orleans Superdome after hurricane Katrina hit for a taster of the fun and games to come unless things change soon. Or watch the film "the Road".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You have to jump through a lot of hoops to adopt or foster, that's a kind of licensing. Why not extend it to everyone who wants to look after a kid?

It's not Eugenics its just making sure the kids will get some basics.

And who gets to decide if I can have a kid? The government? The civil service? How open to abuse would it be to root out undesirables/poors/chavs/gypsys/Jews/immigrants/etc?

But why tar everyone else with the same brush as a VERY SMALL minority of ne'er do wells? It's a VERY dangerous path."

Indeed. We have systems in place to protect children from bad situations. Would it not be better to work on improving these and re-educating those failing parents.

Children do not choose their parents, but they do (mostly) love them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Wow, go go persecution complex or what. Get a grip already.

So your suggestion to control the population by removing financial benefits isn't population control because?...

Have you any idea what benefits people actually get for having kids? It's not nearly quite as much as the Daily Heil scaremongering crap that seems to get the middle-classes so worked up. Believe me, I've seen enough friends struggling to support, feed and clothe their kids on the absolute pittance they get.

So there will be some pregnancies that happen regardless of contraception, but only a small amount. Again, abortion is free.

If you object to that on religious grounds then you could get your church to help raise it.

If you're secular and object on moral grounds then you need to examine those beliefs and weigh up whether the child will suffer as a result of your actions when you can't afford to feed/clothe it, and also whether the life of one unborn fetus is worth sacrificing a little bit of the future of the human race in its entirety.

So basically, as I said before it's about taking responsibility for what you've created.

As many other people have pointed out, the surface area of the UK if farmed can feed the entire population of the planet. Add in a pile (pun intended) of nuclear power stations plus some of the spare farmland for bio-oils and I can't see your mad-max fantasy happening any time soon.

Yup, and the world WAS going to get destroyed by MAD when the Cold War went hot in the '80's too.

Oh and I'd what out for the Mayan prophecies in 2012 too.

You have to be the most impressive troll I've seen on this forum, taking an "oh so rational" approach to answering everything and trying to claim moral superiority at the same time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Wow, go go persecution complex or what. Get a grip already.

So your suggestion to control the population by removing financial benefits isn't population control because?...

So there will be some pregnancies that happen regardless of contraception, but only a small amount. Again, abortion is free.

If you object to that on religious grounds then you could get your church to help raise it.

So basically, as I said before it's about taking responsibility for what you've created.

Yup, and the world WAS going to get destroyed by MAD when the Cold War went hot in the '80's too.

Oh and I'd what out for the Mayan prophecies in 2012 too.

You have to be the most impressive troll I've seen on this forum, taking an "oh so rational" approach to answering everything and trying to claim moral superiority at the same time."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *quirrelMan over a year ago

East Manchester

You have to look at the facts, the population has to be kept at a steady number to ensure the survival of the species. Advances in medicine and in the survivability of children through to adulthood from very premature births have been increasing to the point whereby what would have been called death by natural causes has all but been eliminated.

Our technology has been eliminating the need for people in many areas for decades. Whole factories are being semi-automated requiring a very small number of people to work efficiently, large scale wars will not occur thanks to nuclear weapons and the old are getting older before dying. The net result is too many people living and not enough resources to support them.

I am not referring to resources in the financial sense either, the amount of resources available to use on this planet is finite, there will be a time when they will simply run out and there will be no substitute available to take their place, there are warnings now about future blackouts in the UK because the populations use of electricity will exceed our ability to produce enough of it.

If you cannot support your children from your own means then you should not expect someone else to do it for you. There are many who believe that they have a right to have as many kids as they want, I agree with them, but it should be upto them to support them not the state via taxes from those who show restraint, such an attitude means that left unchecked the country will have to build over every green space in the land to build homes, london could feasibly have streets that start in the capital and extend north to carlisle with no puiblic land or open spaces to be seen along the way.

My friend who works for North Manchester paediatrics told me they have approx 60+ families with 10 or more children on their files, most of the kids are malnourished and have a variety of illnesses and all the families are living on benefits.

There is one "gentleman" who has a genetic disorder which is passed onto the male children of his line, he has had 48 children with a variety of women all of whom are claiming benefits, each male child (38 of them)with the disorder can be expected to be totally reliant on the NHS for all of their needs by the time they reach their 50s. If this "man" had stopped at 2 kids because that was all he could afford then the kids wouldnt suffer and the bill to the taxpayer would be significantly lower than it will be when these kids reach the age when this desease kicki in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Dear Jenni,

Being called a troll for presenting rational arguments, by someone who has not suggested a single alternative to what I've proposed. Interesting?? Particularly as you've obviously no idea what a troll is. I'm not making deliberately inflammatory statements. I'm actually trying to defend my position with arguments that you've no answer for. Clearly.

So, do you hear about anyone ceating more farmland for crops? No, because it would have been done already. We are already farming the vast majority of land fit for that purpose worldwide. Be it for food crop, biofuel crop, animal grazing or whatever. We do have limited space, you can't farm a desert or a mountaintop.

The idea that all our crops can be farmed on an area of land the size of the UK is, as I said earlier, dependent on everyone becomeing vegetarian and no animal feed or biofuel being needed. and that would require some major shift in the way everyone planet-wide live their lives.

In the UK we are in serious need of nuclear power stations as several of ours are nearing the end of their life. However, at this moment in time there are no new ones on the horizon as the government has not yet worked out how to pay for them. Or which design to use, and various other issues, not least the anti-nuke lobby after Fukushima. With the governments current love of wind power we are facing severe power defecits during cold weather. Wind power is unreliable and the turbines are at best 45% efficient. At best, and that's a manufacturer figure so take it with a pinch of salt.

Our government borrowed 18Bn pounds in December alone to cover the interest payments on our national debt. Debt run up through years of financial mismanagement of public finances through waste, PFI and amongst other things a huge welfare state.

I think what I suggest is a fair way of encouraging people to do what they really should be doing before having kids anyway. And that's thinking about supporting them themselves. That's not population control, control suggests it's being done by force. I'm suggesting everyone can have one child, but you'd need to support the rest yourself.

If you object to that, then perhaps you have the problem and think its fine for people to bang out sprog after sprog with no thought about their future.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Or we could do both and just eliminate every non-productive member of society, not sure how we'll get kids through the selection process as they don't really do much until they hit their teens.

------------------------------

To bloody true. Isn't it funny how this shit gets stirred up when times are hard? Divide and conquer. If you can't see you are being played like pawns, then I feel sorry for you.

Lest we forget.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm curious to find out the opinion of the people who are advocating mandatory population control on abortion.

In their ideal planned future, there will be people who don't mean to get pregnant* again but can't afford to pay all the extra costs of the kid. Should we just terminate these kids?

*I know people who use the pill and condoms yet have ended up pregnant, yes the odds are low but they aren't zero.

Personally I'm pro-choice, but a lot of people aren't due to their beliefs - either religious or secular."

Have some posts been deleted somewhere because I can't find one anywhere on the thread advocating mandatory abortions...in fact I think I am the only person to mention abortion and state that although I don't want a child I could never go through with a termination. I'm confused

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

How are you stopped? Legs crossed? Forced injections? Why not just put people to sleep?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's all utter bollocks!!!

No one has or should have the right to choose who can and can't have a child.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So go ahead and breed like a rabbit, then when it all goes tits up you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done. "

Nobody insulted you love, that's just the way YOUR mind works.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So there will be some pregnancies that happen regardless of contraception, but only a small amount. Again, abortion is free.

If you object to that on religious grounds then you could get your church to help raise it."

Is that sarcasm, or a genuine mistake?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Dear Jenni,

But your rational arguments are basically "Fuck you, you're poor!"

And how is my "better use of arable land and more atomic power" not an alternative?

The last time I checked, a troll was either:-

1) A mythological creature with an aversion to daylight, acid and fire that can regenerate quickly. Prone to lurking under bridges and bothering bovidae (that's goats and sheeps to you and me). I played DnD 3rd edition as a kid, so sue me.

2) A dribbling fool on an internet forum who tries to cause arguments by stating stupid points of view. As an example see your "fuck the poor" posts.

And your arguments really boil down to "That's not an argument, la-la-la I'm not listening, I'm right and you're wrong"

So on one hand you claim that we are using all the space on the planet for farming, and then admit that we'd have to become vegetarian if we "only" used the surface area of the UK for farming.

Please make your mind up.

Or at least look at a modern map which shows the current UK and doesn't cover everything else in a nice Victorian British Empire pink.

And as I seem to remember someone else saying, is the surface area of the UK is used for farming veg, then maybe just maybe we could use the steppes of Asia and the American prairies for bio-fuel and tasty moo-cows. And hey, maybe South-East Asia could grow a bit of rice too?

In the UK we are in serious need of nuclear power stations as several of ours are nearing the end of their life. However, at this moment in time there are no new ones on the horizon as the government has not yet worked out how to pay for them. Or which design to use, and various other issues, not least the anti-nuke lobby after Fukushima. With the governments current love of wind power we are facing severe power deficits during cold weather. Wind power is unreliable and the turbines are at best 45% efficient. At best, and that's a manufacturer figure so take it with a pinch of salt.

I don't think you know how a modern government actually works. We tend to need to deficit spend and borrow money as it's actually the most efficient way of using OUR tax money.

I don't remembering anyone mentioning pie in the sky wind power (don't get me started on solar power either), but thanks for using another standard troll tactic of moving goalposts or chucking in random extras arguments and concerns partway through.

The annual cost of servicing the national debt is ~£43bn at the moment, are you really saying they spent 41% of that in one month? Really?

And anyway, the best ways to reduce national debt are to either cut public spending (Hi Jodie) to raise taxes or to expand the economy.

Large scale cuts in public spending actually adversely affect the economy, so your plan to fuck the poors would in fact make things worse, not better.

Oh come on.

You must know that a large percentage of kids are born to parents who weren't thinking of having them there and then. Accidents happen, often in the poorer, less educated classes. The very people who can least expect to manage to afford your controls.

Yes controls.

Sugar coat it however you want to so you can sleep at night, but that's what it boils down to. Forcing people in bad situations (Oh shit, Mum's pregnant again!) to decide if they can actually afford to have another kid or if it's coat hanger time.

If you object to that, then perhaps you have the problem and think its fine for people to bang out sprog after sprog with no thought about their future.

I was going to say "So by not signing up to your baby-killing then I'm the problem". But that would be a bit harsh, so please ignore that comment.

My problem is that I don't like do-gooders telling other people what to do with their lives.

How about another idea. Maybe the government should tax people who can afford to pay more - big corporations and rich people? So then society can support the people who need supporting.

Personally I'd be happy to pay much more in taxes* if it means that disabled people, the elderly and kids get the best possible life.

*I am very, very well off due to hard work, luck and good investments. I make a point of paying ALL my tax and not trying to wriggle out of ANY of it. It's my social duty to do so after all, just like it's my civic duty to vote in every election, even if I think all the options are crap - vote spoiling is a great thing to make a point. I also put a large proportion of my dividend and investment payments into charities that further social, educational (including family planning), health and welfare causes within the country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So go ahead and breed like a rabbit, then when it all goes tits up you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

Nobody insulted you love, that's just the way YOUR mind works."

Must admit I read it in the same way as Jodie but was giving the benefit of doubt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Nope, just me trying a different tack on the subject. If people realise they won't get help for kid 2/3/4/5/6 then there may be an increase in abortions to save money after an accident in bed.

Sorry if I caused any confusion, I was just trying to get people to get their heads out of fairyland and think about real world consequences.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Someone once suggested to me that if people cannot afford to feed them then they shouldn't breed them. Why should the state pay for their children. Should all child welfare payments were stopped.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *londeCazWoman over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

"Someone once suggested to me that if people cannot afford to feed them then they shouldn't breed them. Why should the state pay for their children. Should all child welfare payments were stopped."

Careful, you'll get called a troll for that opinion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *londeCazWoman over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

So go ahead and breed like a rabbit, then when it all goes tits up you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

Nobody insulted you love, that's just the way YOUR mind works.

Must admit I read it in the same way as Jodie but was giving the benefit of doubt"

I read it same way but as it immediately followed my post I thought it referred to me...I do wish people would have the courage to quote the post they're having a dig at, but have noticed a few occasions where this happens

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"Someone once suggested to me that if people cannot afford to feed them then they shouldn't breed them. Why should the state pay for their children. Should all child welfare payments were stopped.

Careful, you'll get called a troll for that opinion

It does seem a bit strange that there's a proposal re legislation about microchipping dogs, at the owner's expense, yet nobody seems too bothered about who gets to have weans.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *londeCazWoman over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

"Someone once suggested to me that if people cannot afford to feed them then they shouldn't breed them. Why should the state pay for their children. Should all child welfare payments were stopped.

Careful, you'll get called a troll for that opinion

It does seem a bit strange that there's a proposal re legislation about microchipping dogs, at the owner's expense, yet nobody seems too bothered about who gets to have weans."

Blimey Onny, it's not often I agree with you (being a - dare I say it - Tory voter) but

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

"Someone once suggested to me that if people cannot afford to feed them then they shouldn't breed them. Why should the state pay for their children. Should all child welfare payments were stopped."

Good grief. So just let children starve because their parents can't afford to feed them?

What about parents who could afford children, but then lose their jobs, or become ill and unable to work?

What about parents who become pregnant by mistake but don't believe in abortion?

Some people's lack of empathy scares me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Someone once suggested to me that if people cannot afford to feed them then they shouldn't breed them. Why should the state pay for their children. Should all child welfare payments were stopped.

Careful, you'll get called a troll for that opinion

Nah, I only call certain people trolls.

Child Welfare (according to HMRC website) is currently £20.30pw for the first kid and £13.40pw for each additional kid.

So a "stereotypical" council estate family with 10 kids would get a whopping £140.90 per week or £7326.80 a year.

Not a lot really is it?

Not quite 6 holidays abroad and 12 TV's that some papers love to tell you about.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"Someone once suggested to me that if people cannot afford to feed them then they shouldn't breed them. Why should the state pay for their children. Should all child welfare payments were stopped.

Careful, you'll get called a troll for that opinion

Nah, I only call certain people trolls.

Child Welfare (according to HMRC website) is currently £20.30pw for the first kid and £13.40pw for each additional kid.

So a "stereotypical" council estate family with 10 kids would get a whopping £140.90 per week or £7326.80 a year.

Not a lot really is it?

Not quite 6 holidays abroad and 12 TV's that some papers love to tell you about."

That's not the bit the ultra-right wingers bitch about.

It's the 3-4 houses knocked into one, the housing benefit which pays for this home, the strain put on Social Services, the NHS, local schools and lots of other publically funded support systems and so on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

£140/week for a family of 11 (12 if the dad is still there) will last 3 days when you think of all the food they will get through. Our weekly shop is £80 and there's only four of us (and two of them are under 4).

Child benefit isn't a lot of money and it stretches not very far with today's food prices.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Someone once suggested to me that if people cannot afford to feed them then they shouldn't breed them. Why should the state pay for their children. Should all child welfare payments were stopped.

Good grief. So just let children starve because their parents can't afford to feed them?

What about parents who could afford children, but then lose their jobs, or become ill and unable to work?

What about parents who become pregnant by mistake but don't believe in abortion?

Some people's lack of empathy scares me

Which is exactly why I came out with my death camp/nazi Germany/mandatory cull comments at the start of the thread.

It's some scary stuff.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *londeCazWoman over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

"Someone once suggested to me that if people cannot afford to feed them then they shouldn't breed them. Why should the state pay for their children. Should all child welfare payments were stopped.

Careful, you'll get called a troll for that opinion

Nah, I only call certain people trolls.

Child Welfare (according to HMRC website) is currently £20.30pw for the first kid and £13.40pw for each additional kid.

So a "stereotypical" council estate family with 10 kids would get a whopping £140.90 per week or £7326.80 a year.

Not a lot really is it?

Not quite 6 holidays abroad and 12 TV's that some papers love to tell you about."

But add in the housing benefit, council tax benefit, JSA and any other benefit entitlements and it can come to a tidy amount....one of my good friends doesn't earn much more than £7k pa and gets a wee bit of working tax credits but has to pay her mortgage and full council tax...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'll take your word on that. I've no idea what/how it all works at that level. My gut feeling is that some tabloid hack will bung worst case figures into the HMRC tax credit calculator thingy, they take those figures to be true for every council/poor/immigrant household in the UK in an attempt to send middle-England into a tizz.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If we had real jobs as opposed to McJobs and a liveable minimum wage, then perhaps there would be no need for child benefit, tax credits etc. More money is being kept by the shareholders of the multinationals (who pay whatever tax they feel they should), than is paid out in benefits. The massive wealth of the few is YET AGAIN propped up by the rotting hulk of the poor. It never lasts and it WILL come crashing down. I hope it's soon.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"If we had real jobs as opposed to McJobs and a liveable minimum wage, then perhaps there would be no need for child benefit, tax credits etc. More money is being kept by the shareholders of the multinationals (who pay whatever tax they feel they should), than is paid out in benefits. The massive wealth of the few is YET AGAIN propped up by the rotting hulk of the poor. It never lasts and it WILL come crashing down. I hope it's soon."

It's coming yet for a' that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

That would by why there has always been rich people and there has always been poor people. Do you have any idea how many people like you have said what you've just said in the fervent hope that just saying it will make it happen. The reality is that if you won the lottery tomorrow night you would sail off into the sunset and en employ an accountant to look after your money so the taxman doesn't take half of it and give it to people like you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igSuki81Man over a year ago

Retirement Village

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

Wasn't the VW Beetle designed by Porsche following Hitlers orders for a car for the people? Not sure if it was a good or bad idea

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What's next?? Being told when we can eat and shit

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ce WingerMan over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

"What's next?? Being told when we can eat shit and die motherfucker

Charming as always Rusty

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What's next?? Being told when we can eat shit and die motherfucker

Charming as always Rusty

Well I do try

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aucy3Couple over a year ago

glasgow

So go ahead and breed like a rabbit, then when it all goes tits up you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

Nobody insulted you love, that's just the way YOUR mind works.

Must admit I read it in the same way as Jodie but was giving the benefit of doubt"

i just don't see that.

jodie has strong opinions,why would questioning what motivates those opinions,be considered insulting?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that.

hitler had some good ideas but he had some bad ones too

Care to expand on which of Hitler's ideas were "good"?

Wasn't the VW Beetle designed by Porsche following Hitlers orders for a car for the people? Not sure if it was a good or bad idea

It was hence his idea and the beetles lovely don't get me wrong he was an arse

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Too true

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

But your rational arguments are basically "Fuck you, you're poor!" "

In the modern western world why do YOU think it's acceptable for people to have child after child with no idea of how you are going to support them? That should be a major consideration before you start fucking, surely? In the third world or developing nations with poor education, contraception methods and religious pressure there's more of an excuse for it, but we here and in other developed nations really have no excuse and need to be leading the way in getting the birth rate down.

The last time I checked, a troll was either:-

2) A dribbling fool on an internet forum who tries to cause arguments by stating stupid points of view. As an example see your "fuck the poor" posts."

Again, I've never said fuck the poor, show me where. And the first of many insults for daring to have a point of view you don't like. Not necessarily stupid. I disagree with yours, but haven't insulted you.

"And your arguments really boil down to "That's not an argument, la-la-la I'm not listening, I'm right and you're wrong""

No they don't, I've put forward arguments for a way to try and SLOW the birth rate in THIS country and reduce the strain on the welfare system, which does not include any form of mandatory birth control and still allows people to breed so as not to leave us with a generation gap. YOU and a few others have resorted to insulting me because you don't like what I've said. But I'm not trying to get into anyone's knickers or pants here so I don't really give a fuck.

So on one hand you claim that we are using all the space on the planet for farming, and then admit that we'd have to become vegetarian if we "only" used the surface area of the UK for farming.

Please make your mind up.

Or at least look at a modern map which shows the current UK and doesn't cover everything else in a nice Victorian British Empire pink.

TRY READING THINGS PROPERLY. There's a difference between using an area of land the size of the UK, to actually using the UK which is ridiculous. I said that the worlds food crop could be produced by farming an area of land the SIZE of the UK, ONLY if the worlds population were to become vegetarian so that none of that area were turned over to animal food, biofuel or other non food crop. Because that's where a large percentage of the world's arable land goes, animal grazing and feed. I said nothing about victorian empire building. In the world at the moment, where there is land capable of being farmed, it is usually being farmed in one way or another.

Another insult, well done. I put in the windfarm stats to try and show that it's not the saviour of our future or current power needs, particularly when coupled with the stuff about us needing more nuclear power stations. But you just ignored that part.

"The annual cost of servicing the national debt is ~£43bn at the moment, are you really saying they spent 41% of that in one month? Really?

And anyway, the best ways to reduce national debt are to either cut public spending (Hi Jodie) to raise taxes or to expand the economy.

Large scale cuts in public spending actually adversely affect the economy, so your plan to fuck the poors would in fact make things worse, not better."

Do you understand the difference between the national debt, which is just over a trillion, and the budget defecit which is 8.9% GDP? They are different things. Just asking, as I don't think you do. The 18Bn borrowed in December was reported in the national press, it's not something I've made up. The government is spending more public money than it brings in through taxes.(the budget defecit) Obviously it has to borrow money to make up that difference, and that money has to be repayed (the national debt).

To enable the government to service the debt properly, it has to reduce the defecit. Which it has to do through reduced public spending in all areas, including welfare and health surprisingly! You are right in one respect, we need economic growth. However, our economy can never hope to grow fast enough to keep up with the employment needs of the rapidly expanding population. So whole generations are being born with a decreasing chance of them having a job to work in, to enable them to pay into the system. We currently have a huge proportion of unemployed young people, which is partly due to an ageing population working longer, but also due to the amount of babies born 20 years ago.

"Oh come on.

Yes controls."

I'll concede a point. People need to be educated better possibly, as it's obviously not sinking in that unprotected fucking between a man and a woman often leads to babies, and/or disease. It's been quite a well kept secret to be fair, I only found out about it when someone mentioned it on here. I thought the faries brought them.

I cannot understand how you think that MAKING people think about wether they can afford a subsequent child is a control? It's called responsibility. It's a free choice. It should be forefront of a potential parent's mind surely?

"Sugar coat it however you want to so you can sleep at night, but that's what it boils down to. Forcing people in bad situations (Oh shit, Mum's pregnant again!) to decide if they can actually afford to have another kid or if it's coat hanger time."

NHS abortions are free, no coat hanger needed. Contraception is free. The ability to think before you do something is free. You're suggesting I'm advocating back room abortion there I think? Never did that, never hurts to have a dig does it. And I sleep like a...ooops...baby.

"I was going to say "So by not signing up to your baby-killing then I'm the problem". But that would be a bit harsh, so please ignore that comment."

Then why fucking mention it if not to have a go at me? And obviously you're pro-life, but of the two of us, which one has prevented a bloke from beating the shit out of his heavily pregnant girlfriend at 2am one morning?

Hint, I bet it's not you. So don't question my ethics as you've no idea who I am or what I do or have done for a living, and am not for the unneccesary waste of life. People who have babies that are doomed to suffering when they have the knowledge and the tools to prevent that are the ones I have problems with.

"My problem is that I don't like do-gooders telling other people what to do with their lives.

How about another idea. Maybe the government should tax people who can afford to pay more - big corporations and rich people? So then society can support the people who need supporting.

Because big corporations and rich people can afford efficient tax arrangements, or raise prices to cover the tax, and if all else fails, move to another country.

I'm not telling anyone what to do with their lives. Someone started a thread asking if procreation should be licensed. I actually said no, but suggested an alternative. You and others have assumed that what I said here somehow means I'm in a position of power to make any of these things happen. It's a thread on a website devoted to people fucking strangers, so has no relevance in the real world. So you and others have insulted me for having an opinion you don't like, yet have none better, and you all fail to see the growing problem of population expansion globally, let alone in the UK.

It is the single biggest problem facing the whole planet at the moment, it is the cause of global warming and many other ecological and social problems. Yet people like you, who hate "do gooders telling you what to do" are actually the problem. No political party that wants votes will dare broach the subject of people breeding less, because people like you will react just the way you have done on here and send your vote elsewhere. That is why this massive problem will go unreported until it's far too late.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Is calling someone a troll an insult?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Is calling someone a troll an insult?"

Don't suppose trolls mind x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

That's all you two took from that?

Sweet Christ on a bike....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"That's all you two took from that?

Sweet Christ on a bike...."

No took more from it but thought the troll issue needed clearing up

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"That's all you two took from that?

Sweet Christ on a bike...."

if you're referring to me i didn't take anything from it. cos i didn't read i was merely asking a general question

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Is calling someone a troll an insult?"

You did read it, or at least part of it otherwise you wouldn't have asked that, as the only place it's mentioned is in my last reply to Jenni.

So now you're just trolling for the reaction.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Is calling someone a troll an insult?

You did read it, or at least part of it otherwise you wouldn't have asked that, as the only place it's mentioned is in my last reply to Jenni.

So now you're just trolling for the reaction."

not at all. someone called me one earlier in the thread. i sort of gave up reading your posts when you restated you believed it was acceptable to deny babies medical treatment solely on financial grounds. what do you have against children?. to be honest you raised of some valid points earlier. but that isn't one if them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Does each one if my sperm have to pass a driving test now?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The carrying capacity of the planet is estimated at around 16bn, some (somewhat optimistic) estimates go up to 1000bn people.

The UN estimate that we'll hit 10bn by 2100AD, birth rates are dropping globally as well, so it looks like the problem is not quite as bad as some would have you believe.

We can get resources from off world with enough politic/corporate will, if the population grows too much then the solar system will get opened up for exploitation.

----------------------------------

So again you admit that an area the size of the UK could feed the world. Then claim it's not enough to feed to world.

Please take a step back, READ what you are saying and get back to me.

NOT

SAYING

USE

THE

GROW

ALL

THE

WORLDS

FOOD

SAYING

USE

THE

AREA

THE

Area UK =/= Area World

Even if the Area of the UK is used for crop-land there is still a lot more space that can be used for other stuff, y'know like the rest of the planet.

Like I said last time.

Most of the problem we have is that developing countries can't store food long enough to make best use of it.

I'd love to know where you got that I'm pro-life as I wrote:

Personally I'm pro-choice, but a lot of people aren't due to their beliefs - either religious or secular.

about a day ago.

Fair play to you for helping the pregnant girl. I've never been in a situation like that where I could have made a difference. For what it's worth I broke the arms of a mugger once when I was at uni if that makes you feel any better?

Plus I give money to rape charities among many others.

See the shapes, do the shapes make letters? do the letters make words?

Have a guess what my stance is? Go on, give it a go...

I'm coming down on you because kids tend to happen regardless of intentions even with people who understand birth control and use it.

A choice of abort fetus, give child away for adoption or starve is not really a choice is it? People fuck up sometimes and the social system is in place to help them.

Poor people would be the most affected as they traditionally have the worst education, least money and largest families. So even with the best will in the world it would only make things worse for them.

Interestingly, the UK's population growth rate is ~0.56% per year which is pretty low. We've got the 147th fastest growing population in fact!

You know above where I mentioned plummeting world growth rates? The UN estimates that the world rate will hit 0.5% per year this century. So we are already ahead of the curve, thanks for helping me do the research to find this out. Looks like the UK is okay after all and we don't need to worry as we are already doing our bit.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Someone once suggested to me that if people cannot afford to feed them then they shouldn't breed them. Why should the state pay for their children. Should all child welfare payments were stopped.

Careful, you'll get called a troll for that opinion

Nah, I only call certain people trolls.

Child Welfare (according to HMRC website) is currently £20.30pw for the first kid and £13.40pw for each additional kid.

So a "stereotypical" council estate family with 10 kids would get a whopping £140.90 per week or £7326.80 a year.

Not a lot really is it?

Not quite 6 holidays abroad and 12 TV's that some papers love to tell you about."

Just a note that you havnt included what the parents get themselfs aswell and then the housing costs, then also the free school meals, clothing grants, and that doesnt include the free dental and medication etc etc all in all it ammounts to a hell of alot of money that a family like me who works dont get.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And I said that a farmed area the size of the UK could feed the world ONLY if the current population (and future people) of the world became vegetarian. How many more times.

And your figures quoted would also be dependent on the bits of the earth that are not being farmed for food being covered in housing. And I for one, wouldn't fancy living in a Judge Dredd style mega city. As the social situation would degenerate into that sort of violence and degredation rapidly.

Also, and most importantly, any thoughts of using all available land for farming after we've all become vegetarian, everyone mucking in and paying more tax, living together in peace and harmony anywhere we choose on the planet, all depend on one thing. The fundamental selfishness of the human race being forgotten in favour of people helping one another for no financial gain or advancement. Doing things or not doing things to help/stop hurting others even if it's a bit of a hardship and you get nothing out of it.

That will never happen. I'd love a Star Trek style planet where all war is forgotten (apart from with the bastard aliens) in favour of advancing the collective human experience, but people as a group are stupid and selfish. Trying to change that would be the key, and I can't see that any time soon.

Any thoughts of populating the solar system's only other habitable bodies, Mars and the moon are so far fetched they are not worth thinking about as a solution.

NASA is not looking at people on Mars before 2050 at least, and even then it's a one way trip for a small number of people.

I actually thought you were taking the piss by mentioning it!!

I hope you were.

Our population growth may be 147th in the world, but it's still growing, just not as fast as other places. Thats like saying "I killed 50 people today. But that's ok as that guy over there killed a thousand!"

It's not a competition to see where in the league table we are as there are no winners in that. Just a bunch of losers.

We're a small island, before long we'll run out of space (if we don't run out of money first). Just to see how much area we cover have a look at those satellite images taken at night with the light patterns. See how many areas of total darkness there are. Not many. I live near one of the biggest but its all mountains, not good for farming or living.

No matter how sarcastic I've been about it. Sex education is a problem. But everyone in this country has had the option of going to school and learning about it, regardless of how badly it is taught. I do not believe there are many teenagers or people leaving school who do not know how children are made and how to prevent it. So for the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies it is just carelessness and ignorance rather than poor education to blame. So a system where your first little accident is supported by the state is fair. But if you continue to have little accidents then why should it pay for them?

You called me a baby killer, which is why I said you were pro-life even though you stated you were pro-choice. (As you'd also be a baby killer as a pro-choice supporter)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles.

There's a nasty little word the Nazi's loved called eugenics. Master race and all that."

This is a really feeble Godwinism - you need to get some perspective.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtydanMan over a year ago

Blackpool

YES

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I guess some people still think they have the perfect answers to societies 'problems'

all I can see is its being about being a useful commodity even before ur born and it all appears like some kind of Gattica environment that some people seek

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not claiming to have the answer to anything. Last person to say he did was nailed to a cross for daring to say so. So loving each other clearly doesn't work.

I just suggested a way to halt the inevitable slide into a vast urban hell. But it seems most people want to get straight there.

The Halls of Justice will look lovely as they tower though the perma-smog.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Don't presume I have the same moral shortcomings as yourself.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Steralising chavs to prevent a next generation of them would be a good idea.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Don't presume I have the same moral shortcomings as yourself."

What the fuck has morality got to do with it? How many homeless people have you taken in recently? How much of your wages do you give away to those more in need of it than you?

Poor people are the most hypocritical people in society mainly because 1) they ain't poor, and 2) they don't think of giving anything to a complete stranger without expecting something in return.

It's very easy to be socialist when there is little chance of being truly tested on it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Steralising chavs to prevent a next generation of them would be a good idea.

And socialists.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)